Updated 12:26 pm, Wednesday, June 28, 2017

A conservative legal action organization says Seattle's new "democracy voucher" program forces taxpayers to subsidize political expression in violation of the Constitution.

A conservative legal action organization says Seattle's new "democracy voucher" program forces taxpayers to subsidize political expression in violation of the Constitution.

Photo: Seattle Municipal Archive

Lawsuit aims to block Seattle’s $3M 'democracy voucher' effort

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Seattle’s fledgling “democracy voucher” program now faces its first serious challenge, coming by way of a lawsuit from a conservative legal action organization.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, attorneys with the Pacific Legal Foundation claim the city program now in its first year violates taxpayers rights by requiring that they subsidize political campaigns.

The program, approved by Seattle voters in 2015, established a pot of public money to fund campaigns for municipal elections. The money is dispersed by residents, who each election cycle receive $100 in vouchers they may assign to campaigns that have registered with the city.

Attorneys for the legal action organization describe the voucher system as a "politician enrichment tax" that forces Seattle property owners to finance political action that may be against their interests.

Seattle residents were issued their vouchers for the 2017 elections in January. Another batch will be issues in early 2018. The program is funded by property taxes, and can draw $3 million annually. Funds that are not used are rolled into the next cycle.

As of last week, only three candidates on the August primary ballot have received funds through the democracy voucher program. City Council candidates Jon Grant and Teresa Mosqueda had received $129,450 and $61,225 respectively, while City Attorney Pete Holmes had received $39,925 for his re-election campaign.

Some Oregon Residents Upset at Prospect of Pumping Their Own GasBuzz 60

Doug Baldwin playcallingBy Michael-Shawn Dugar, SeattlePI

Van Crashes Into Pedestrians Injuring SixAssociated Press

US military to accept transgender recruits after Trump drops appealEuronews

Snow on Christmas Eve, 2017Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Ice carving at WinterfestSeattle Post-Intelligencer

Amtrak derails near OlympiaGrant Hindsley / SeattlePI

Golden retriever meets Darth Vader and EwokSeattle Post-Intelligencer

Seattle's tunnel project, 2017 in reviewWSDOT

Hillary Clinton Book Signing Capitol HillSeattle Post-Intelligencer

The city is collecting vouchers issued in support of other candidates who have said they are interested in participating but not shown themselves to have qualified to draw from the fund. Candidates must collect a small number of donations before they're allowed to collect the democracy vouchers. Until they show they've done so, the city essentially keeps the money in trust.

The program was pitched to voters as a way to diminish big donors’ sway in city elections, and to limit the power of outside groups hoping to influence Seattle politics. At present, only participants in city council and city attorney races are able to receive payments. Mayoral candidates will be able to draw from the fund in 2021.

Renewing a critique of the initiative that created the program, attorneys with the Pacific Legal Foundation contend Seattle taxpayers are being forced to underwrite politicians they oppose.

Ethan Blevins, the California-based group’s lead attorney on the matter, argued that the First Amendment protects Americans from being forced into political expression. Blevins singled out the Grant donations as particularly problematic for Seattle landlords who find themselves footing part of the bill for a council candidate campaigning as a champion for renters’ rights.

“So rental property owners are forced to bankroll a politician who is adverse to their rights and their interests,” Blevins said in a statement.

“It’s about coercion, not free choice,” he continued. “The voucher tax conscripts property owners into footing the bill for other people’s donations. It forces them to fund contributions, candidates, and causes they might not favor.”

Blevins also argued that program, pitched as a way to level the political playfield, will benefit “insiders and incumbents.”